I think you are confusing an emergent property created by a system with how the system operates on its own. That architects draft blueprints that result in public housing projects that leads to forced living relationships that makes it hard to evict drug dealers doesnât mean that the discipline of architecture runs on drug dealing. Even if that drug dealing impacts the architects.
You seem to have written some simulations of natural selection. In writing those algorithms did you have to code in the ability to predict? Of course not. Can natural selection operate without prediction? Yes! Can natural selection generate organisms that have the ability to predict without prediction being built into natural selection? Of course!
âNatural selection does not involve prediction if it acts on a system which does not make predictions. It does involve prediction when it acts on a system which does make predictions.â
Perhaps if I use a technique of substitution for this you will quickly grasp the confusion here between the process of natural evolution and the emergent property of âthe ability to make predictionsâ. You are making a category error.
âNatural selection does not involve flippers if it acts on a system which does not make flippers. It does involve flippers when it acts on a system which does make flippers.â
Since the dolphin has evolved flippers would you therefore say that ânatural selection operates on flippers?â That would be very misleading. One could also go to your web page and substitute pictures of flippers wherever youâve draw in little brains and it would still make as much sense to those who understand evolution.
Of course, the existence of brains and flippers influence the direction evolution takes and so do asteroids collisions. That doesnât mean that natural selection operates on the basis of asteroid hits. Asteroids arenât the primary cause for the emergent order of life. The primary cause is also not predictive.
If from political events it was predictable that nuclear war was inevitable and imminent then, do you expect humans to experience a sudden increase in mutation of alleles increasing fitness towards nuclear survivability? Would you expect those alleles to also become more frequent in the population? All this merely because a brain somewhere predicted correctly that a nuclear event was about to happen?
Think what you are saying here. How natural selection works is well known. It works on differential survival of random mutations and on prediction and proactive behavior. Natural selection itself has no mechanism for making predictions or acting proactively.
Dawkins isnât saying that evolution isnât powerful. It is extremely powerful. What heâs saying is that that power is not due a conscious or unconscious ability to predict, or to act on prediction.
As for my rejection of Popper meaning that I support Kuhn: philosophy of science has moved on a bit since the 1960s.
I quote from your article:
“The most general problem confronting the Bayesian philosophy is that scientists tend not to use probabilities when evaluating their theories. Instead, they tend to evaluate them in terms of their empirical adequacy and their explanatory power. The problem is that explanatory worth is not illuminated in terms of probabilities, so the Bayesian outlook cannot explain this central feature of modern science.”
No kidding, and that’s a fatal flaw if you are claiming that scientists are choosing their theories primarily based on probability.
“Charles Darwin produced large volumes of intelligent and careful observations of animal habitat, form and behavior long before he developed his theory of species development by natural selection. It was no less science for that.”
How that refutes Popper he doesn’t say. Popper addressed such issues. Is this guy really so ill informed as to think that Popper wasn’t aware that scientists collect data. Guess what, the religious do also, for example, lists of miracles.
“At best Popperian ideas muddy the waters and at worst they corrupt progress.”
I say “How so, and what a load of baloney.” Popper clarified a very important issue in the demarcation of science from non-science. Collecting data isnât one of the things that demark science from non-science. The only reason the writer of this article would bring data collection up is if he were totally ignorant of Poppers theories.
One important lesson that should be learned to âovercome biasâ is to understand the theory you are criticizing before you open your mouth.
“I have noticed that research councils increasingly require that research they support be ‘hypothesis driven’ ”
Oh, so it’s not so “1960s” is it?
Not sure how this is any kind of obstacle that would “muddy the waters” or “corrupt progress”. Is that what itâs supposed to be an example of? Popper says that the fundamental process is a series of guesses and refutations of those guess. Your hypothesis can be anything including âI think that X is not random but caused by something elseâ. In which case you are free to go out and research anything you like.
This sounds more like a complaint that they can take other peoples money via taxes to pursue whatever they feel like with out some sort of justification. Boo, hoo.
âThis is like commissioning a piece of fine furniture on the basis that it should be âchisel drivenâ.â
No, itâs like expecting to get science, not art, when you are paying for science, not art. If the author doesnât want oversight then perhaps you should raise his own funds privately, or use his own money, instead of trying to divert tax money into his pet project.
I can see why some âscientistsâ are objecting to Popper, itâs cutting into their ability to pursue non-science on the public dole. Much of the anti-Popper backlash has been in the area of the social sciences where theyâd like to pursue things in a more post-modernist way.
Not sure how the author, using his standards, would expect to reject a request by the Catholic Church for scientific research funds from the government in order to maintain lists of saints and miracles. That is if he rejects falsification as an important breakthrough in demarking science from non-science.
Oh, and I just now noticed this guy is from the “Department of Psychology”. How’s that for a prediction.
Tim,
I think you are confusing an emergent property created by a system with how the system operates on its own. That architects draft blueprints that result in public housing projects that leads to forced living relationships that makes it hard to evict drug dealers doesnât mean that the discipline of architecture runs on drug dealing. Even if that drug dealing impacts the architects.
You seem to have written some simulations of natural selection. In writing those algorithms did you have to code in the ability to predict? Of course not. Can natural selection operate without prediction? Yes! Can natural selection generate organisms that have the ability to predict without prediction being built into natural selection? Of course!
Perhaps if I use a technique of substitution for this you will quickly grasp the confusion here between the process of natural evolution and the emergent property of âthe ability to make predictionsâ. You are making a category error.
Since the dolphin has evolved flippers would you therefore say that ânatural selection operates on flippers?â That would be very misleading. One could also go to your web page and substitute pictures of flippers wherever youâve draw in little brains and it would still make as much sense to those who understand evolution.
Of course, the existence of brains and flippers influence the direction evolution takes and so do asteroids collisions. That doesnât mean that natural selection operates on the basis of asteroid hits. Asteroids arenât the primary cause for the emergent order of life. The primary cause is also not predictive.
If from political events it was predictable that nuclear war was inevitable and imminent then, do you expect humans to experience a sudden increase in mutation of alleles increasing fitness towards nuclear survivability? Would you expect those alleles to also become more frequent in the population? All this merely because a brain somewhere predicted correctly that a nuclear event was about to happen?
Think what you are saying here. How natural selection works is well known. It works on differential survival of random mutations and on prediction and proactive behavior. Natural selection itself has no mechanism for making predictions or acting proactively.
Dawkins isnât saying that evolution isnât powerful. It is extremely powerful. What heâs saying is that that power is not due a conscious or unconscious ability to predict, or to act on prediction.
I quote from your article:
No kidding, and that’s a fatal flaw if you are claiming that scientists are choosing their theories primarily based on probability.
How that refutes Popper he doesn’t say. Popper addressed such issues. Is this guy really so ill informed as to think that Popper wasn’t aware that scientists collect data. Guess what, the religious do also, for example, lists of miracles.
I say “How so, and what a load of baloney.” Popper clarified a very important issue in the demarcation of science from non-science. Collecting data isnât one of the things that demark science from non-science. The only reason the writer of this article would bring data collection up is if he were totally ignorant of Poppers theories.
One important lesson that should be learned to âovercome biasâ is to understand the theory you are criticizing before you open your mouth.
Oh, so it’s not so “1960s” is it?
Not sure how this is any kind of obstacle that would “muddy the waters” or “corrupt progress”. Is that what itâs supposed to be an example of? Popper says that the fundamental process is a series of guesses and refutations of those guess. Your hypothesis can be anything including âI think that X is not random but caused by something elseâ. In which case you are free to go out and research anything you like.
This sounds more like a complaint that they can take other peoples money via taxes to pursue whatever they feel like with out some sort of justification. Boo, hoo.
No, itâs like expecting to get science, not art, when you are paying for science, not art. If the author doesnât want oversight then perhaps you should raise his own funds privately, or use his own money, instead of trying to divert tax money into his pet project.
I can see why some âscientistsâ are objecting to Popper, itâs cutting into their ability to pursue non-science on the public dole. Much of the anti-Popper backlash has been in the area of the social sciences where theyâd like to pursue things in a more post-modernist way.
Not sure how the author, using his standards, would expect to reject a request by the Catholic Church for scientific research funds from the government in order to maintain lists of saints and miracles. That is if he rejects falsification as an important breakthrough in demarking science from non-science.
Oh, and I just now noticed this guy is from the “Department of Psychology”. How’s that for a prediction.